It was not my intention earlier to be frivolous about _this_
thread, nor is it now. Since it involves so many human lives and outraged
feelings of a large section of people, I'll try to elaborate rather than
just shrug it off or avoid it as a mere difference in perception

which it is not. The idea or intent is not to run down any
individuals

but to offer a perspective.

Reports like that in "The Dawn" of Pakistan reflecting, for
example,

the "Khalistan Calling" view from Vancouver, to which

I responded, will still bring about the same response from me.
As will anything else that _merely_ offers the feelings from any other
outside-India agency/party. (That does not mean that I'd ignore it, just
that I'd treat it within the context of a much larger view.) Having

said that, let me also say very simply that the
Pakistani/Khalistani

view is not credible at all, and as long as we are just
talking about

that, I am more than willing to be misunderstood.

Those looking for a more detailed answer may refer to my post
to the postcolonial list under the subject header "Re: Kashmir is not East
Timor". It is dated September 23, 1999. [No idea about the archives of
that, so in case it's not available, I'd be willing to send it
back-

channel to whoever wants it.]

Though I wrote before reading the post on "other" view points

in India, which I later found merely referred to a report in
TOI,

I am willing to address the other questions
raised in the context

of all the other "evidence" - circumstantial, "hard" &
conjectural.

I'd confine myself here to the reasons I had then, last
Sunday, Mar

26 for thinking it to be a convincing enough case as there
isn't _any_

evidence apart from the propaganda from Pakistan Press (which
is

not credible) nor any reasons to believe otherwise.
Incidentally,

General Musharaff was on record recently to say that he has
given

the press in Pakistan freedom to write anything about
individuals

(including him, that is) but not against Pakistan or its
interests.

Now back to the brutal killings of Sikhs: why would
Pakistan-backed terrorists wish to do it? (Okay, let's be even more generous
as Time

was and assume that it is possible that this heinous act may
not have

been approved by Pakistan military; but as we would see, there
is no

reason for Indian authorities to do it as alleged by the
reports from

Khalitan or Pakistan press. That is why Clinton's 'some
elements"

in Pakistan govt. assumes significance and perhaps some day
that

mystery would be solved too. Probably the reference was to the

intercept)

The short answer is: because they couldn't see anything other
than

this desperate attempt to internationalise the issue.

A simple call for azadi by bands of disgruntled youth in India
(i.e. parts of the valley) which was turned into a proxy war against
India in the winter of '89 (time of a govt. NOT dominated

by 'hindu nationalists', but one with a Kashmiri muslim Home

Minister) & then turned within a year into a full scale
jehad against

India has been acknowledged from the time of Benazir Bhutto's

celebrated "azadi, azadi, azadi" speech in favour of Kashmir's

"freedom" & that the whole idea was to somehow avenge
1971.

That the various politicians in New Delhi or Srinagar (mostly
muslim)

before and after have, to put it mildly, not been been able to

handle it is a different subject. Yes, ordinary,
harmless people have

suffered & the intent in all of this is not to
condone it or shrug it

off as "collateral damage" as some of the 'civilized' nations
seem to.

The human tragedy is very real & overpowering. And to
suggest that

it is ignored is travesty of truth & to try &
understand something ought

not to be equated with approving it.

Manohar Joshi's book, "The Lost Rebellion" examines sensitive
issues like the 'Indian atrocities', those committed by Afghan
terrorists based in Pakistan, infamous alley-deaths & how well
documented the media charges against the alleged army violence is and
how it is addressed, among much else, and I'd suggest a reading of that for
those who might be interested. Also puts the role of various politicians
in the rest of India, in J&K & in

Pakistan in perspective.

Also useful in this context would be to see something which
went unnoticed in all this:

As a baffled Indian Govt. spokesman, describing it as a
"curious and absurd" statement asked, "how can a part of this country be
crucial for the survival of another country?" So I think it's futile
even

dismissed as "cooked up" if we don't look
at all the evidence in context (about this news item of March 26, more
later). Shouldn't we examine

them in the light of the eye-witness
accounts? And that all accusations

of "cooking up" are under the
hawk-eye of the media that is willing to

take on the army even (as at the time of
Kargil); the fact that all protests

& allegations by various sections,
including those of the hardcore

terrorists are noted and
addressed?

Isn't the person arrested alive and in custody? Wasn't his
arrest

possible because of the help of the villagers?

So what is one to do? Have an "international enquiry"? Who
wants

that? India or Pakistan? Wouldn't India know that any such
incident

in the glare of world media would bring it into focus? Would
India

wish that to happen when Clinton is visiting & to risk
plunging the

country into a mad binge of rioting which is hardly likely to
assure

the inflow of American investment.

As for the RAW chief being a Sikh, it was in the context of
Akali Dal response to Chauhan-Tohra-Rode, as reported in the Asian Age.
I thought it would be well-known that such statements on the part of
Akali Dal (very significant because even this faction has had trouble with
RSS' Singh Sabhas and of BJP's attempts to bring

in prominent Congress Sikh leader Ahluwalia to counter its
dependence on its ally the AD) were made AFTER meeting the survivors and
ascertaining their views in re: the possible killers.

The suggestion was that there was much more to consider than
merely

what "The Dawn" reported. The state of the Sikh politics &
the

right-wing there cannot be dissociated from the turn this
controversy

took, and how rumours have gained circulation. And also, the
BJP/

NC "hardline" & pro-active anti-terrorist drive hadn't
gone unnoticed

in the press.

And there is no reason to doubt the survivors' reliability as
witnesses (or to put it mildly, very distressed, anguished complaints
and concerns; or not to take them seriously). Would they allow the allow the
BSF, police, and military personnel into the Gurudwara if they believed they
were responsible for the massacre? (cf: the first report of the incident in
various newspapers

on March 22).

Why would there be survivors - mostly left
deliberately - at all? Why

would they helpfully provide the "Jai Ram/Jai Bharat/Jai
Hind/Happy

Holi" angles?

To start with, Rashtriya Rifles looking after
this area, is made up

largely of Sikh soldiers from the Punjab Regiment. The
murderersobviously behaved as the Lashkar-e-Taiba literature
indoctrinates

them to believe Indian soldiers would,
a misrepresentation that

finds frequent references in LeT lit. which
also claims that the

Ghurkha soldiers eat their dead parents' bodies, btw - such is
the

hatred they are reared on. There is much more to go on about
that,

but for the time being, I'd let it be.

I think the trouble with all us 'secularists' is that because
of our very legitimate and genuine concern against the rise of 'hindutava'
almost anything that can put it under attack always comes into operation
at the slightest of possibility. Even the media is not

averse to it. Of course political opposition against any
fascistic

policies has to go on, but not on mere hunches. There is a
space

for even hunches to be voiced, concerns to be aired and
examined,

but does it mean that we should just treat EVERYTHING done

by GoI in which BJP is the principal political party as part
of a sinister

plan? Must we bring in our partisan 'party' politics into
serious and

larger issues? Or to assume that those who point this out are
Hinduttava

or even BJP supporters?

I am not suggesting that possibilities should NOT be
considered, just that all the factors should be taken into account. RSS has

already been under suspicion by _all_ sections because of
their sikh sabhas, recent Gujarat fiasco and so on. Govt.'s
hardline

had been commented on, where there would be entire villages
chosen

for "crack downs" & so on. I offer that, in the light of
the other available

evidence, as the Frontline (a magazine well known for its
antipathy

to this govt., to hindutva of anykind & so on) story
suggests the above

ruse was used by the killers and their patrons. Oh, what is
there to suggest

that RAW didn't do it under that cover so as to deflect
attention? I'd offer

that by doing so there was MUCH more to lose and almost
nothing to

gain & India was not in any desperate position or
feeling cornered

as Pakistan was. After Kargil, any such large killings are a
matter of

concern for the GoI as the public opinion against it mounts.
And all

the other "evidence" points to the contrary. Even the
quickness with

which it was immediately alleged by a militant group that
it was a

GoI conspiracy to discredit them. I mean, since it is
well known that

there are a whole lot of them in operation, could one of them
speak

for all of them? When even the so-called hurriyat leaders
claim that

they don't know at least 70% (how they get that figure is a
different

debate) of the foreign militants in operation - this came from
Shabir

Shah on camera on Star news. This point by itself is something
that

should give us pause to ponder, and the quickness with which
it was

pounced upon by one and all.

Even now, I'd be concerned more about the morale of the army
and

the Sikhs in it, and of the minority and the concerned, easily
swayed

people who are willing to entertain almost ANY doubt, any
rumour and

not look at the total picture.

Who would wish to add layer upon layer of deviousness (they
were actually Indian agents but dressed up in Indian armed forces clothes
so as NOT to appear Indians and also helpfully yelled out the above, and
waved bottles of rum while they were at it and leave behind witnesses, not
accidentally but deliberately?)

Keeping an open mind is one thing but surely we have to look
at it in

context, not the least of which is that Indian army
is under George

Fernandes, whose human rights and anti-fascism esp.
anti-Hindutva credentials are pretty convincing and also in
the context of close media scrutiny of any act of violence
in Kashmir, specially such a gruesome

one when the world press attention is focussed here. GoI
(which as

should be remembered is dependent on the parties of
people like

Fernandes & Naidu too, to name only two) would not want to
bring

any such suspicion of any Indian people against it. The
media srutiny

is happening. That it is happening by itself and to the extent
focuses on

the fascistic hindutva/khalistani forces
elsewhere in the country is a good

thing, I'd reckon. But not the implication
that there all the available

evidence is "cooked up".

OTOH, because Pakistan & or its henchmen wish to keep the

Khalistanis, whatever their numbers, on
their side, and also wish to

sow the seeds of suspicion in the minds of the sikhs, minorities and

the concerned as well as in the
minds of the general masses who are
against 'hindutva' - yours truly
being one of them - something like this

WAS required. So that
there would be general confusion.

Consider the logistics of involvement of so many men who
also

leave behind eye witnesses. Not accidentally but
deliberately.

One has to read many newspaper accounts, try & talk to the
people

who have met the survivors, if not the survivors
themselves before

one thinks there is no evidence or that it is all "cooked up"
(by an

agency called 'raw', ironically).

Unless of course it was a US backed operation, as a friend
suggested, facetiously, maybe to bring Sonia into power, given the
excessive spy-thriller/magic-realistic type approach of Clinton's
arrival in Pak, and accounts of US vehicles driving on the wrong side of
Pak roads, which wished to bring out the role of all sorts of
religious-right and their possible involvement.

IF the argument is that it was India's intent to highlight

cross-border-terrorism (as if it needed any highlighting to
the

Americans or others) and wished to simply try to pass it off
as

yet another pak-based/backed/inspired terrorist killing, would
it not just

do it without leaving any witnesses and to "cook up" so
convincing

evidence - as it seems to be suggested its agencies are able
to do -

that it would be absolutely above suspicion and no group
could

even suggest that it was India's doing? Say, an attack on some
of the

sarkari-muslim supporters of Farooq Abdullah, if not on
Abdullah

himself? Or on some lower-level BJP type
people in Jammu? Or on

some symbolic govt.
building?

Weren't the "intrusions" at Kargil denied all along for such a
long time? Wasn't there taped evidence of intercepts available then with
the Indian govt. between the very same gentleman who is now CEO? (Of
course help of the US agencies in this evidence being available

was always suggested) And was there any response when it was
even

played on radio/TV or shared? Didn't the same gentleman as on
that

intercept quietly deny all involvement & eventually throw
out the

Pakistan PM who had earlier talked of peace with India?

But if all that is interpreted to mean that one thinks there
_could_ be no _possibility_ of _any_ foul play or that one is immune to the
real and genuine fears of the Indian minorities in general; or the sikhs
in particular within the country and outside who have had simmering
discontent particularly because of the 1984 perpetrators remaining
unpunished, Operation Blue Star etc. among many other things, one does feel
it important to point out that one looks at the _plausibility_ factors,
taking an overall view - of all the

"evidence" available. Such wounds do take long to heal, and
that's why one feels even more concerned and angered by the seriousness
of this & the ease with which we are willing to believe almost
anything. Or to doubt everything. Or of the Pakistan press to play it
up. But I am more than willing to take a stand on this and risk being called
full of 'nationalist fervour'.

With all my differences with Khushwant Singh, I do have
sympathy

for his impotent rage and his questions to
Farooq Abdullah, Advani

& Fernandes, about their respective failures and
those ARE legitimate questions, but even there one has to get into the very many
issues

involved & also ask if the same concern should not be
voiced when

other casualties occur? When the army/BSF men die? When
muslim/

hindu lives are lost in the valley? Thankfully even Khushwant
Singh

is convinced of this much that whoever it was did it so as
to

_internationalise_ the issue, as per his Malice column in the
HT last

Saturday. I submit that India or its agencies had no wish to
internationalise

the issue. If anything, just the contrary.

The present Pakistan admin. or those who may have gone out of
its

control, on the other hand, have no credibility to start
with & nothing

to lose by any of its acts. When cornered, they are
driven to such acts because that starts yet another vicious cycle of
protests by various

vested interests, more violence which is continually stoked.
GoI cannot

wish to risk any such public opinion. It has enough resentment
against

it among the middle-classes, no matter what one Pankaj Mishra
says:

the thinking sections of the 'middle classes' do not approve
of any

_hindu nationalism_ or necessarily support a hard-line.
One just has to

see the united protests against the ICHR, Deepa
Mehta (but no body mentions the charges of plagiarism against her) &
much more. Or the

overall jubilation when the Lahore Bus happened. All
those keep getting mentioned here from time to time. But not the situation
in PoK, the

militant training camps, the other ethnic problems of
Pakistan, China's

doings in Aksai Chin...

Wouldn't India rather keep it a Vale of Silence, if it could,
rather than

(even risk) having it splashed all over the world and lend
credence to

Pakistani rhetoric & US concerns of a "nuclear
flashpoint", "most

dangerous spot on earth", "tinderbox" etc? And not even wish
to risk

these kind of charges which are being levelled now and also
have to

deal with further discontent & simmering resentment, fear
and anguish

among minorities & all those thinking classes? And if they
are so good

at "cooking up" surely they would also consider the added
pressure

from human rights organisations, legal and civic rights
activists,

international & national press AND international and
national propaganda?

And also how the violent spirals let loose
by them go out of hand?

Wouldn't it wish to just sweep away
charges of its 'army's atrocities'

or brutalities under the carpet rather
than have them aired all over the place?

It wouldn't certainly allow the agencies
such as the BBC to land up there

at the scene of the
crime and allow whatever despatches these agencies

wish to make.

The charge of turning on the sikhs & muslims also is not
credible in

the present gruesome case, because the only _possible_
justification

which can be conceived is that GoI was trying to build up a
case for

launching strikes against the terrorist camps against LeT and
others in

west Punjab & PoK because the stakes include dealing with
external

threats in Kashmir and the army does have a very sizeable
number of

sikhs. To have a demoralised army with even a fraction of
the number

of sikhs having suspicion about its own govt's role
in the murder of their

community is more
than reason enough.

Who does it suit to cause confusion and mayhem in India?
The ruling GoI badly dependent on allied support which could

collapse at the whiff of any evidence - and with so many
agencies

& men involved & a watchful media, it is not possible
for any thing

like this to go unnoticed - or the henchmen of the admin
from across

the border which wishes to internationalise Kashmir? The
latter's ploy

works because after having sowed these seeds and letting loose
a

new cycle of violence, it doesn't have to do anything more,
apart from

repeating the old allegation again and again, directly or by
innuendo.

And there are pretty large number of
well-meaning people willing to buy

it. Even if they don't buy it, the fear
spreads and that's what is required

to stoke any violent
conflagration.

And not just that, the idea seems to be to
create trouble at an all-India

level, among the various other fundamentalist and even common
people.

And try to provoke the other, in this case, the internal
enemy/fascists,

the Hinduttava/khalistani elements, all over the country. So
in India

there's a fresh upsurge of violence. Would it happen in
Pakistan?

Who would suffer? The Kashmiris - the sikhs - the muslims -
the

hindus - the christians & many other innocent people - all
over India

in short, the Indians. Does ANYONE suffer in
Pakistan? Who was in

such a, well, painted corner as to resort to desperate,
dastardly deeds

like this? Not the GoI, I'd submit. Pak admin. was already
discredited

after Kargil & the army takeover & the hijacking &
this was supposed

to be an attempt to discredit the Indian govt & cause
absolute mayhem

in India when Clinton was here. That is my case.
Sure Pakistan &

Pakistanis would like to believe just the opposite, and
perhaps some Khalistanis & some sections of India, and if not to believe
that, then to

try and project it as that, and they are welcome to it
which is one of

the reasons I am not in a mood to talk to them or to
convince them.

But I do wish that those with genuine worries will look at all
the

aspects before concluding that there is no evidence or that it
is all

cooked up. If they wish to keep an open mind about that,
that's okay,

I guess.

There _is_a very genuine, instinctive, visceral reaction to
any brutal side of the state machinery, or any violence, in a very large
majority of Indians, I'd submit. We have not become brutalised, nor

has affluence made us so nor indeed have we become intolerant.
We just have to look at Mr. Lamba's and Mousami's reactions, to name two
people who spoke up. It is very much there in me too, I submit, to
incredulous gasps. That is India's strength and weakness

which the external fascistic enemy seeks to always exploit.
And with

the press there & general media more than willing to
propagate only the

official p.o.v. people perhaps there still aren't aware
of their atrocities anywhere. A post to H-Asia by an American professor at
Texas was

quite revealing on some of these issues, some months back. I'd
be

pleased to share with those interested.

(Does it mean that in India one neglects the internal fascist
elements,

be they khalistanis/hindutva or others? NO! But one certainly
looks

at ALL the factors rather than just some of them. Now as to
what COULD be a possibility, of course, there always could be a
possibility of ANYTHING. The stories of abductions by aliens
could

also be true. But more seriously, in this case, if
one looks at a much

larger picture, one looks at what the "evidence" presented
there is.

Whether it's just an expression of a possibility, an innuendo
or direct accusation, or is there anything more to it. In this case, so
far I have

not found any evidence to the contrary being offered in any quarters

as far as the killings of the sikhs is concerned.

If we take the recent hijacking to Afghanistan, it would be
recalled that the dreaded terrorists demanded in exchange were in jail
(i.e. not killed just like that) and alive and healthy (ie not tortured) and
yet it's recorded evidence that they showed up in Pakistan after being
released in Afghanistan. Now all this not to suggest that there are NO
brutalities by state-agencies in India, merely that we are not to look at
them as just going about brutally

indulging in killing people, even dreaded wanted criminals,
leave

alone indulging in genocide of innocents. Or that they just
kill

whoever they suspect to be a Paksitan-agent. As for one
Kashmiri

Hindu army officer who apparently met one Pankaj Mishra &
had

some 'macho' confessionals to make -
I have nothing to say about its

authenticity or possible conflation to overall Indian army
attitude but

(interesting to find a lot of such
anecdotage in much of the atrocity-

charges all over) could offer the speculation
that perhaps the hardening

of attitude may have had something to
do with how even captured

terrorists are allowed to walk away in the
face of terrorist threats to

innocents? Perhaps the judicial system
does need more than an overhaul.

All those, including whatever harm and
brutalities ordinary people suffer,

IS a very legitimate concern. Isn't there a case for
strengthening whatever systems of a civilised society are in
place rather than weakening them? Including the army? The
system isn't supposed to prevent stupidity and viciousness at all times, as a friend pointed out recently to me, but it
has

got to have mechanisms to uncover truth,
reconcile and adjudicate it.

That each life has value is shown by
attaching a kind of bureaucratic/

religious ritual to each death. Which is
why instead of thinking that there

is NO evidence, shouldn't there be an effort to ensure that
whatever there

is, is examined in proper context & so
on? Instead of saying that it is bad,

shouldn't some effort go into fixing it?

There IS a case for ensuring that ordinary valley-vallas do
not get affected and not further alienated and that sense of alienation IS
presented in Indian media, composed of its middle-class, not getting
into their intellectual & cultural lives. Indian thinking-classes are
not SO stupid to think that once we have got Pakistan declared a terrorist
state, or once the cross-border terrorism stops, it'd all be hunky dory. Or
that it is ALL Pakistan's fault. Nor is the

level of discourse in the country. But surely it is not too
much to

ask for this terrorism to stop, if the real concern is for the
people?

So that at least an effort can be made to be able to talk to
them?

I don't ever see any Pakistani voice on this list even
suggesting so

much as an indirect condemnation that IF
Pakistan-backed terrorists

are involved, in any killings, it is a
dastardly crime against humanity

and should not be done.

My main problem with all my friends in this & other issues
is that our attentions are always focussed on one type of fascism /
fundamentalism/younameit - the hindutva - but not on the other - the
islamist/the Khalistani/the militarist - whatever else - and this seems to
seep into our other views and interpretations more than looking at the total
picture and in our hurry to condemn what we KNOW we need to fight (which we
have to, as well as forsocial justice and so on) we jump to all sorts of
conclusions like there is NO evidence, it is ALL cooked up, and such. To say
that perhaps risks getting called a Sangh Parivar apologist or a BJP
poster-boy or a closet-hindutavadi or a nationalist or a Paki-basher or
Muslim/Sikh hater or whatever. I mean, I am tempted sometimes to just don
the darned Saffron or Green or Blue or whatever & change

my name too, while I am at it, when I am being perverse, so
that I could

go sort out those fascists from within. Or maybe I could
also provide

some ancestral and familial connections to prove my syncretic
roots. Wonder if that would give me more credibility. I think not.
I guess I'd

still be as foolish and rush in where the
angels fear to tread.

What is convincing proof? What is convincing? What is
conclusive?

All those are serious issues to discuss & has to be done
with reference to all the evidence and listening to various sikh & other
voices here in India. Those who have met the survivors and listened to
them and also examined the various facets of this very complex issue. Who
are the best impartial judges of this? I'd say that by itself is a complex
and involved debate. But should of course be encouraged.

I would submit that a fairly large - not sure if it's
predominant - section of all Indian classes think the same instinctively
even if they are not articulating it. When civilians die anywhere there
is an outrage. (But why should this outrage be so severe only when

it is members of one particular community? Why not so
sensationalist

when, say, ordinary muslims or hindus die in Kashmir? Or even
the

security personnel?) I would start sounding too jingoistic if
I start on

the Kargil war and how the dead on two sides were treated. But
as

concerned people should we not be at least questioning it? We
are

either too busy pushing our favourite causes or too polite to
speak

freely, frankly & fearlessly, to use a friend's
expression.

Thankfully with more affluence, we'd be able to do it more
usefully.

WIth more affluence it'd be possible to even actually see
what's

happening. And we do want it for all the Indians and that's
why it's

important to try and involve the people of Kashmir to
try and find

creative, credible ways of helping us all grow more affluent.
Affluence

of the middle classes is not going to be possible if a
sizeable part of India or Indians are bleeding and suffering under the yoke
of fascism -

or under an armed attack, & suppression of them by
the army is obviously not the idea supported by Indian thinking or even
other

classes. (And of course MUCH needs to be done to be able to
talk to

Kashmiri people. But that's not going to be possible until the
guns

keep booming. In the midst of this mindless talk of violence,
the serious analysts are more than aware
of how the brutal cycle of violence could

alienate the people of Kashmir forever (if
it's not already happened) and

that apart from what pak-based terrorists
are up to, there IS a crying need

to somehow try and get local involvement
in fighting this menace, and it is tragic and all of that,
but the moot point is: should we just NOT try to fight

this violence and how humanely is it possible on the ground,
given the

situation as it is.)

And actually, apart from human grounds, the same wish people
in India have for people - as against the army which rules the writ
always - in Pakistan too. Not for purely altruistic or noble-savage
reasons either. (*Whoever* the Aryans were or *wherever* they

came from, as far as I am concerned, I don't want them
crossing our LOC either way). Out of sheer common sense. Unless it is

affluent and stable, we know we'd always have trouble
living with it

& we do not want to have desperate situations where human
lives

are at stake. I am sure that is the general impression there
too about

us. So of course to state the obvious, that everybody knows,
it is in

everyone's own interest for Pak to have the same anti
fascistic ideological position & it would help if they got somewhere
close to a democracy too. To use guns to stop people from voting is

certainly not a way of furthering democracy or furthering
social

justice or human rights or ensuring the people's wishes. That
Indian

democracy needs major overhaul by itself is a different story
but

at least over a period of time, the people have been able to
move

forward - Andhra being a prime example of suffering from
New

Delhi's and local politicians' heavy-handedness - wherever
people

have used the ballot and not the bullet. That there was no one
on

the sidelines to provide them with bullets or hitmen is also a
difft.

story.

I realise the folly of even mentioning Clinton, as
Clinton-speak is easy to, well, swallow and lead to interesting digressions
as to what is is etc. As of course the various interpretions of remarks
like: "there are elements within Pakistan government that have supported
those who engaged in violence in Kashmir" & such.

But, this comes from a Pakistan press coverage of what he said
to

Indian Parliament:

"I share many of your government's concerns about the
course Pakistan is taking; your disappointment that past overtures have not
always met with success; your outrage over recent violence. I know it is
difficult to be a democracy bordered by nations whose governments reject
democracy".

Now of course he didn't say that in Pakistan or to directly,
pointedly accuse it about the sikh killings; but what _did_ he

say:

"I share your conviction that Human Rights

of all [kashmiri] people must be respected... But a

stark truth must also be faced - there is no

military solution to Kashmir. International,

sympathy, support and intervention cannot

be won by provoking a bigger, bloodier

conflict. On the contrary, sympathy and

support will be lost and no matter how

great the grievance, it is wrong to support

attacks against civilians across the Line

of Control. "

That he did not say anything direct at the time of Kargil

either and of course it can be believed by those willing
to

that those were not Pakistani troops, or as General Musharraf

later said, everybody was involved. Or whatever one wishes to

believe. Of course Clinton's perceptions by themselves are not

that important & my reference is in context of the fact
that he

happened to be here and the US intelligence in the
subcontinent

was more than active then.

In a different post, under a different heading - and I don't
speak for my friend here - whose views I inflicted on the list - I talked
of culpability. My reading of which is to suggest that we are all
culpable for all the violence - including the state violence - around

us - or what happened in Delhi in 1984 for example - or the
senselessness of the Operation Blue Star, Ayodhya to name only some, as
well as what is happening now in J&K and very many other parts of the
country. And we can't just keep keeping an open

mind and think that sure _anything_ is possible and condemn
Indian

democracy, phoolan devi or whoever and then happily go back
to

our lives and hope it would all sort itself out. And we do
have to

know that fundamentalism/totalitarianism is to be fought,
sadly even

violently by the armed forces (and there IS need of course to
ensure

that the army doesn't become the oppressor of the oppressed
etc.) if

we are to survive for what is at stake is plurality and
secularism and democracy, indeed the very idea of India which rejects the two nation

theory & the idea of Pakistan which somehow seeks to cling on to it to validate itself, despite its having
been discredited. That's the battle line,

as far as I am concerned, and I am all for
fighting it, letting it be very

clearly known that LOC is the line to
stick to, no point going back in

history (else it becomes a question of how
far are we should go) & acknowledging Pakistan as a sovereign country &
letting its people figure

out a way of defining their country the
way they want to. One of the

reasons why I thought this present Indian
PM deserved credit, with all my various other criticisms of him, over the years, not the least being his RSS membership, was that for
the first time you had a leader from a party with
affiliations with those groups who often have been found to
be crying over

that India wished it well and other such
goodly stuff which is why - and

not because of any idiotic sense of _hindu nationalism_ that
part of

GoI policy was welcomed across the spectrum (not the
"secularists"

though, who kept insisting at the time of Kargil that it was a
mistake:

we can _never_ trust Pak, we should have been more vigilant
etc.

I agree with the latter part, but not that we shouldn't have
done it in

the first place. But does that make me into supporting a tough
line,

aggressive or hindu nationalism now? One of the first
questions the

secularists wished to ask when consensus around LoC was sought
to

be built was - whatever happened to getting PoK & Aksai
Chin back.

I mean, if this is not a role reversal then what is? Aren't we
gonna leave

our party politics out ever? I am more than willing to which
is why I

am all for supporting whoever talks of a peaceful
solution. But what

am I doing about it all now is a question I will
rather leave unanswered

here.

Now a word about human rights and other conspiracy theories
and so on. I think with all of middle class India's faults, the press is
far more freer and capable of taking on the army & the GoI - as
we found at the time of Kargil - and if there is occasion to discuss it
someplace outside this list, I'd be happy to discuss the Indian press role
in covering this latest issue. Those who see the various media coverages
will know even about the role of the press in this regard. And in the times
to come as the events unfold. And to the extent it brings infamy to the
internal fascist elements in the country, I say more power to the press!

KPS Gill was mentioned. Now he is difficult to discuss as that
results in various digressions about various testosterone related

charges against him - or to be accused of condoning state
brutalities

- which he's addressed rather eloquently and well in his
various

writings and I'd respectfully urge an engagement with his
views on

terrorism. I am much impressed by his credentials to be a sikh
and

indian and world citizen, and the evident pride he takes in
all those

roles, despite ALL his faults, which have done much harm to
him

in the matter of being taken seriously in the public mind. One
which

I think ought to be read, primarily
because he's scathingly against all

war-mongering and all politicians' (including the army chief's) macho
posturings & such. Frankly, I'd rather that such
people were in politics

And ofcourse, even on this thread, I do agree with Ajit that
none of this will change opinions and predispositions. These arguments and
debates do not resolve any issues and change no minds. So my
apologies for inflicting it again. On the other thread on _Indian
Politics_, I have to submit that my intention was to offer a
psephological speculation alone. If the ruling party was Congress under
Rao/Sonia, United Front under Gujral/Gowda or whoever, the context might
become clearer. How does any ruling party

increase its vote share in the electoral bazaar? Providing a
solution

to Kashmir problem would be one such I'd think off-hand. It
was

limited to that, I hasten to add.

I meant to edit this to make it orderly but had to get this
out of my system first before that & haven't had time. Or energy. And
now I have none. Because of being unusually busy in the last few weeks,
I